Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> What risk? And at least we'd be trying to do it cleanly, in a manner >> that should work for at least 99% of users. AFAICT, Heikki's proposal >> is "break it for everyone, and damn the torpedoes".
> I must be confused. I thought Heikki's proposal was "fix it in 9.1, > because incompatibilities are an expected part of major release > upgrades, but don't break it in 9.0 and prior, because it's not > particularly important and we don't want to change behavior or risk > breaking things in minor releases". No, nobody was proposing changing it before 9.1 (or at least I didn't think anybody was). What's under discussion is how much effort to put into making a 9.0-to-9.1 upgrade go smoothly for people who have the function installed. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers